NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[dismalist]

And, Honest Abe Lincoln was a lawyer and he never went to college. He was apprenticed and then passed the bar exam.

Back then, medical education wasn't as formalized as it is today.

Is that your standard for your doctors?

I never said all educations are bad. Lawyering is trivial compared to doctoring. I did say competition enforces standards more and better than regulation.

[Let's not talk about "regulatory capture", though; it's a field of its own.]

Once again, the question is who pays.

Ummmm, yeah, good lawyering is not "trivial" when you are accused of a crime or, as in my past situation, I needed a restraining order to keep my mother safe from a meth-addicted family member when I lived 1,500 miles away.  Sure, MDs are the smartest, but having a really good lawyer is invaluable.

You are really, really straining to make a fallacious strawman argument here.

We ALL pay when education tumbles.  Pay for it now or pay for it later----isn't that some homespun wisdom?

You didn't pay the lawyer? Someone else did?

[Anon1787]

Ummmm, yeah, good lawyering is not "trivial" when you are accused of a crime or, as in my past situation, I needed a restraining order to keep my mother safe from a meth-addicted family member when I lived 1,500 miles away.  Sure, MDs are the smartest, but having a really good lawyer is invaluable.

If you want to pay for the services of a lawyer with a fancy legal education in your personal lawsuit, go ahead, but there is little public benefit for the rest of society to be forced to subsidize your preference.

[Wahoo Redux]

Ummmm, yeah, good lawyering is not "trivial" when you are accused of a crime or, as in my past situation, I needed a restraining order to keep my mother safe from a meth-addicted family member when I lived 1,500 miles away.  Sure, MDs are the smartest, but having a really good lawyer is invaluable.

If you want to pay for the services of a lawyer with a fancy legal education in your personal lawsuit, go ahead, but there is little public benefit for the rest of society to be forced to subsidize your preference.

????

Not sure what you are saying there or why you got a burr under your saddle.

In my scenario above we did pay out of pocket.

The thread is on the value of an educated public----if we DO subsidize state law schools, then we are getting lawyers----a good to society, all sarcastic lawyer jokes aside.  No?

If I am accused and cannot pay for an attorney, then one will be provided for me at no cost to me.  That is also subsiding a lawyer----a definite good to society. 

And if I could not pay for a lawyer with a "fancy legal education" (don't all lawyers have a "fancy legal education"!?), should my Alzheimer-ridden mother have been ripped off and endangered by a meth head and her meth head friends?  Is that your problem with paying for a "fancy legal education?"  Is keeping helpless elders safe not a "benefit to society?"  What the #@$$#@~ did you think was my "personal lawsuit" about!?!?!

I'm not sure I get the drift of this thread...

[kaysixteen]

We're talking on skewed planes here, because we cannot seem to agree on the answer to the question of whether or not education is a public good.   It seems clear enough to me that it is, irrespective of diploma mills and some very marginally academic courses and programs, and some schools that have no business continuing to exist.  Indeed, many of the libertarian nutjobs who seem to think it is not such a good, well they benefited greatly from extensive public spending on it, both at the k12 and higher ed levels, and their desire to take this away seems to be akin to the guy who was first up the tower when the Vikings were a-sighted, and pulled up the ladder behind him, screwing over the rest of the villagers.  Today we do not even spend nearly as much on school supplies and other such things for public k12 schools-- watch any Walmart at back to school time now, and see many parents buying many things that used to be given to the kids by the schools.   Similarly when you think of school busses, sports teams, etc., that are often nowadays fee-based.   College is another world of hurt.   It simply costs these kids far more to go there, adjusted for inflation, than the Boomers had to pay, thanks to those libertarian whackos.   Where will it end?

[Anon1787]

Ummmm, yeah, good lawyering is not "trivial" when you are accused of a crime or, as in my past situation, I needed a restraining order to keep my mother safe from a meth-addicted family member when I lived 1,500 miles away.  Sure, MDs are the smartest, but having a really good lawyer is invaluable.

If you want to pay for the services of a lawyer with a fancy legal education in your personal lawsuit, go ahead, but there is little public benefit for the rest of society to be forced to subsidize your preference.

????

Not sure what you are saying there or why you got a burr under your saddle.

In my scenario above we did pay out of pocket.

Exactly! If there is a big demand for lawyers with a fancy legal education, then there's no reason for the general public to provide large subsidies to those who get a fancy legal education. Those lawyers will recoup the cost of their education from their clients. The public good argument is that there are positive externalities that are not captured by lawyers from their paying clients, which results in fewer such lawyers than optimal and that is why the public should provide subsidies. The public good case for subsidizing a highly remunerative trade school like law school is even weaker than general education.

(If you think that there would not be enough lawyers with a fancy legal education to serve as prosecutors and public defenders--which is a public good, you could have specific educational subsidies for those who serve in government for a period of time.)

[marshwiggle]

We're talking on skewed planes here, because we cannot seem to agree on the answer to the question of whether or not education is a public good.   It seems clear enough to me that it is, irrespective of diploma mills and some very marginally academic courses and programs, and some schools that have no business continuing to exist. 

The polarization in this discussion overlooks the entirely obvious large area in the middle. As long as people can choose their education, over a vast array of disciplines, then the degree of "public good" varies dramatically between options.

The question is not "whether" education is a public good, but what education is a public good, and when education is both a public and a private good, how should the funding be weighted to be most responsible to taxpayers?

[Wahoo Redux]

Exactly! If there is a big demand for lawyers with a fancy legal education, then there's no reason for the general public to provide large subsidies to those who get a fancy legal education. Those lawyers will recoup the cost of their education from their clients. The public good argument is that there are positive externalities that are not captured by lawyers from their paying clients, which results in fewer such lawyers than optimal and that is why the public should provide subsidies. The public good case for subsidizing a highly remunerative trade school like law school is even weaker than general education.

The average law students takes out between $160K and $200K in loans. 

Very few lawyers actually do pro bono work or go to law school on scholarship.  Almost everyone pays out of pocket for an attorney or pays a percentage of their award unless you have been Mirandized and are impoverished.

I don't think law school is heavily subsidized, so again, I do not grasp where this is going.

But again, imagine a culture without enough lawyers.  As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems facing our legal justice system is that both prosecutor and public defender offices are vastly overwhelmed.  This is a bad for society and we are paying the price.

[marshwiggle]

But again, imagine a culture without enough lawyers.  As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems facing our legal justice system is that both prosecutor and public defender offices are vastly overwhelmed.  This is a bad for society and we are paying the price.

Someone can correct me on this, but my understanding is that it isn't because there aren't enough lawyers available, it's because the government budgets for prosecutors and public defenders don't allow for the number that ought to be hired.

I seem to recall that there are lots of lawyers struggling to get sufficient work. So it's not that there aren't enough getting the education; it's that there aren't enough getting hired.

[dismalist]

But again, imagine a culture without enough lawyers.  As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems facing our legal justice system is that both prosecutor and public defender offices are vastly overwhelmed.  This is a bad for society and we are paying the price.

Someone can correct me on this, but my understanding is that it isn't because there aren't enough lawyers available, it's because the government budgets for prosecutors and public defenders don't allow for the number that ought to be hired.

I seem to recall that there are lots of lawyers struggling to get sufficient work. So it's not that there aren't enough getting the education; it's that there aren't enough getting hired.

Excellent, Marsh. The public part of the justice system is paid for by government, including salaries. That public good is already being paid for. More could be bought, of course. But the providers are being paid. No need to subsidize their education.

Same with public health, which is also paid for through taxes. No need to subsidize doctors' educations.

Same with basic research. The researchers get paid out of government money. No need to subsidized their education.

Decide how much of this stuff one wants. Vote accordingly. Do not worry about finding enough doctors, lawyers, or sanitation workers. Market does that once the spending for the output flows.

Reminds me of a true anecdote: Recall the Russian official who, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, asked British economist Paul Seabright, "Who is in charge of the supply of bread to the population of London?"

[jimbogumbo]

But again, imagine a culture without enough lawyers.  As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems facing our legal justice system is that both prosecutor and public defender offices are vastly overwhelmed.  This is a bad for society and we are paying the price.

Someone can correct me on this, but my understanding is that it isn't because there aren't enough lawyers available, it's because the government budgets for prosecutors and public defenders don't allow for the number that ought to be hired.

I seem to recall that there are lots of lawyers struggling to get sufficient work. So it's not that there aren't enough getting the education; it's that there aren't enough getting hired.

Excellent, Marsh. The public part of the justice system is paid for by government, including salaries. That public good is already being paid for. More could be bought, of course. But the providers are being paid. No need to subsidize their education.

Same with public health, which is also paid for through taxes. No need to subsidize doctors' educations.

Same with basic research. The researchers get paid out of government money. No need to subsidized their education.

Decide how much of this stuff one wants. Vote accordingly. Do not worry about finding enough doctors, lawyers, or sanitation workers. Market does that once the spending for the output flows.

Reminds me of a true anecdote: Recall the Russian official who, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, asked British economist Paul Seabright, "Who is in charge of the supply of bread to the population of London?"

I'm going to have to say false. The reason we have too many lawyers and not enough doctors is precisely because we don't subsidize medical education sufficiently. Law seems easier to get into, and is definitely more lucrative for many. To be a GP you have to pay similarly to law and for a longer period of time and then be paid less? And we wonder why there is a shortage.

And, if we can't agree that Wahoo's situation with his mother being addressed is both a private good for her AND a public good then we simply won't agree on solutions.

[dismalist]

But again, imagine a culture without enough lawyers.  As a matter of fact, one of the biggest problems facing our legal justice system is that both prosecutor and public defender offices are vastly overwhelmed.  This is a bad for society and we are paying the price.

Someone can correct me on this, but my understanding is that it isn't because there aren't enough lawyers available, it's because the government budgets for prosecutors and public defenders don't allow for the number that ought to be hired.

I seem to recall that there are lots of lawyers struggling to get sufficient work. So it's not that there aren't enough getting the education; it's that there aren't enough getting hired.

Excellent, Marsh. The public part of the justice system is paid for by government, including salaries. That public good is already being paid for. More could be bought, of course. But the providers are being paid. No need to subsidize their education.

Same with public health, which is also paid for through taxes. No need to subsidize doctors' educations.

Same with basic research. The researchers get paid out of government money. No need to subsidized their education.

Decide how much of this stuff one wants. Vote accordingly. Do not worry about finding enough doctors, lawyers, or sanitation workers. Market does that once the spending for the output flows.

Reminds me of a true anecdote: Recall the Russian official who, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, asked British economist Paul Seabright, "Who is in charge of the supply of bread to the population of London?"

I'm going to have to say false. The reason we have too many lawyers and not enough doctors is precisely because we don't subsidize medical education sufficiently. Law seems easier to get into, and is definitely more lucrative for many. To be a GP you have to pay similarly to law and for a longer period of time and then be paid less? And we wonder why there is a shortage.

And, if we can't agree that Wahoo's situation with his mother being addressed is both a private good for her AND a public good then we simply won't agree on solutions.

The reason the US has fewer doctors per capita than civilized countries is that  the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) limits them. The LCME consists of near half representatives of med schools and near half representatives of doctors [by the AMA alone]. None of these have an interest in expanding the number of doctors. That would erode incomes.  All in the name of quality. This is the best example of regulatory capture imaginable.

There's no such thing as a private good that is a public good at the same time. One should be able to insure against personal problems that bust the bank. That this is often difficult in the US of A is due to the heavy regulation of the insurance industry by all the individual States, and for health insurance, by the Federal Government. This is government failure, not market failure, and it's due to regulatory capture.

Let me alert to a widespread, incorrect, but instinctive response to perceived scarcity, which amounts to pouring gasoline on the fire: We don't have enough X. Therefore, let's give people money to buy X. But that drives up the price of X! Or, let's subsidize medical education. Given the LCME, that drives up doctors' income which drives up tuition for med school, with no effect on supply.

As for lawyers, States require three years of law school from schools approved the American Bar Association. They're just like the AMA. Hell, just let them pass the bar, avoiding three years of school, of which at least two are a waste of time for almost all lawyers.

Let supply increase. But that means some well organized people's incomes would go down. While the rest of us, unorganized, would benefit.

[jimbogumbo]

So educate. Was Wahoo's an example of a private or a public good? I'm specifically asking about the availability of support.

Also. Would there not be more GPs (there is clearly a shortage) if their cost benefit wasn't better? Yes, I get the limiting of supply by the AMA. But I'm talking about the proportion of GPs to specialists.

[dismalist]

So educate. Was Wahoo's an example of a private or a public good? I'm specifically asking about the availability of support.

Also. Would there not be more GPs (there is clearly a shortage) if their cost benefit wasn't better? Yes, I get the limiting of supply by the AMA. But I'm talking about the proportion of GPs to specialists.

Fixing my mother's sickness is a purely private good. My mother's health has no bearing on your well being. It's an insurance problem, not a public goods problem.

I don't know that there is a shortage of GP's compared to specialists. How would one even know? If one can't see a GP, my [highly educated] guess would be that it's an insurance problem.

No gasoline on the fire.

[jimbogumbo]

So educate. Was Wahoo's an example of a private or a public good? I'm specifically asking about the availability of support.

Also. Would there not be more GPs (there is clearly a shortage) if their cost benefit wasn't better? Yes, I get the limiting of supply by the AMA. But I'm talking about the proportion of GPs to specialists.

Fixing my mother's sickness is a purely private good. My mother's health has no bearing on your well being. It's an insurance problem, not a public goods problem.

I don't know that there is a shortage of GP's compared to specialists. How would one even know? If one can't see a GP, my [highly educated] guess would be that it's an insurance problem.

No gasoline on the fire.

?

Many people can't see a GP because, well, there aren't any near them. How on earth is that an insurance problem?

Here is a recent link re physician shortages in general. The Kaiser study referenced speaks to GPs.

I have no idea what no gasoline on the fire could possibly mean.

[dismalist]

So educate. Was Wahoo's an example of a private or a public good? I'm specifically asking about the availability of support.

Also. Would there not be more GPs (there is clearly a shortage) if their cost benefit wasn't better? Yes, I get the limiting of supply by the AMA. But I'm talking about the proportion of GPs to specialists.

Fixing my mother's sickness is a purely private good. My mother's health has no bearing on your well being. It's an insurance problem, not a public goods problem.

I don't know that there is a shortage of GP's compared to specialists. How would one even know? If one can't see a GP, my [highly educated] guess would be that it's an insurance problem.

No gasoline on the fire.

?

Many people can't see a GP because, well, there aren't any near them. How on earth is that an insurance problem?

Here is a recent link re physician shortages in general. The Kaiser study referenced speaks to GPs.

I have no idea what no gasoline on the fire could possibly mean.

To get more GP's, smash the LCME. Revolution now!

Look, Kaiser is also an interest group. Not even necessarily a totally bad one. Don't take it at face value.

If something is limited in supply by politics, giving people more money to buy it is like pouring gasoline on a fire.